|
fool_of_sound posted:I promise I won't probate anyone for arguing for data based restrictions on abortion or specifics of immigration policy. People are allowed to oppose gun restrictions or support the American military or even defend cops, unless they're being racist or ghoulish while doing so. My goal isn't to ensure only opinions I agree with, it's to promote discussion and intellectual growth by keeping it on topic, safe and welcoming, and free of people acting like assholes. And a few pages ago you said those positions were inherently sexist or racist and posters making them should be banned. "Sorry if this offends". Again, we're all pretty smart people, we all get the message being delivered here. No need for the fig leaf.
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 04:20 |
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I promise I won't probate anyone for arguing for data based restrictions on abortion or specifics of immigration policy. People are allowed to oppose gun restrictions or support the American military or even defend cops, unless they're being racist or ghoulish while doing so. My goal isn't to ensure only opinions I agree with, it's to promote discussion and intellectual growth by keeping it on topic, safe and welcoming, and free of people acting like assholes. I'm sorry, but this sounds eminently reasonable, so I'm afraid you just won't be a good fit for the job 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
I feel like all of history has been someone having to explain after a selection process how the suggestions fished for do not necessarily have to contain the final decision. Reading f.o.s’s post history explains the reasoning as well as anything else, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:And a few pages ago you said those positions were inherently sexist or racist and posters making them should be banned. "Sorry if this offends". If only there was any other threads in this subforum.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I promise I won't probate anyone for arguing for data based restrictions on abortion or specifics of immigration policy. People are allowed to oppose gun restrictions or support the American military or even defend cops, unless they're being racist or ghoulish while doing so. My goal isn't to ensure only opinions I agree with, it's to promote discussion and intellectual growth by keeping it on topic, safe and welcoming, and free of people acting like assholes. a wise and just philosophy. i am cautiously optimistic! good luck! edit: also this is the sort of thing i was asking about when i was asking guyo to provide a vision for D&D. axeil fucked around with this message at 16:39 on May 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:And a few pages ago you said those positions were inherently sexist or racist and posters making them should be banned. "Sorry if this offends". If this was true, wouldnt you be banned already? Unoriginal Name fucked around with this message at 17:41 on May 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:why not just explicitly forbid conservatives, republicans, and Trump voters?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I promise I won't probate anyone for arguing for data based restrictions on abortion or specifics of immigration policy. People are allowed to oppose gun restrictions or support the American military or even defend cops, unless they're being racist or ghoulish while doing so. My goal isn't to ensure only opinions I agree with, it's to promote discussion and intellectual growth by keeping it on topic, safe and welcoming, and free of people acting like assholes. Do you believe that voting for Trump in 2020 is an inherently racist thing to do?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I promise I won't probate anyone for arguing for data based restrictions on abortion or specifics of immigration policy. People are allowed to oppose gun restrictions or support the American military or even defend cops, unless they're being racist or ghoulish while doing so. My goal isn't to ensure only opinions I agree with, it's to promote discussion and intellectual growth by keeping it on topic, safe and welcoming, and free of people acting like assholes. fool_of_sound posted:Defending an idea with a clearly and provably negative outcome for a protected group without showing exceptional necessity is bigoted. The strength of belief or ostensible motivation doesn't matter. It sounds like you're foreclosing any argument from a moral standpoint that you disagree with and insisting that people argue from a "data based" approach, except that you're the one allowed to decide which metrics are valid. Can you provide an example of a "data based restriction on abortion" you would find acceptable? Because I just don't see how you can reconcile "an idea with a clearly and provably negative outcome for a protected group without showing exceptional necessity is bigoted" and fool_of_sound posted:The problem isn't that "life begins at conception" can't, theoretically, be logically consistent. It's that the outcomes of such a belief are inevitably sexist, and thus so is advocating for it. Good faith and bigotry are separate issues. wateroverfire posted:If not supporting illegal immigration is considered per se racist and therefore bannable, that is a problem. fool_of_sound posted:Actually several or those things are, in fact, racists or sexist, and should be bannable. Sorry if this offends. What constitutes a protected class in this context anyway? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:23 on May 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Do you believe that voting for Trump in 2020 is an inherently racist thing to do? Yeah I think voting for the party of explicit racism counts as racist
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Yeah I think voting for the party of explicit racism counts as racist That's pretty nuts. Something like a little less than half the US voted for Trump. Some black and latino voters voted for Trump. They're all racists?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That's pretty nuts. Something like a little less than half the US voted for Trump. Some black and latino voters voted for Trump. They're all racists? Dang it's almost like the post specified in 2020 and this is some handwringing bullshit
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That's pretty nuts. Something like a little less than half the US voted for Trump. Some black and latino voters voted for Trump. They're all racists? If you voted for Trump you're at least some sort of bigot, whether its racist or sexist or homophobic or whatever
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That's pretty nuts. Something like a little less than half the US voted for Trump. Some black and latino voters voted for Trump. They're all racists? Are they posting defenses of Donny's administration and it's horrible actions? Because that's what people are talking about banning people for, sticking up for the Muslim ban or going to bat for child separation is pretty clearly under the banner of other rules like don't be racist. Also, yes, voting for the proud racist does require some level of racism on your part. Though I will conceded that there is a non zero number of people who voted Donny with absolutely no idea of his policies or actions. America is a he'll of a place.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Can you provide an example of a "data based restriction on abortion" you would find acceptable? Sure! Arguments against late-stage abortions or particular techniques based on safety statistics, where the risk isn't outweighed by health dangers to the woman. Similarly, while I support extremely permissive immigration, I think arguments can made for more selective methods that aren't bigoted, though the framing and methods promoted by the Republican party largely are. There are many political positions that exist outside of rabid cultural conservatism that I disagree with also, but aren't bigoted. Another important consideration is that people don't always understand the implications of their positions. Voter ID, for instance, sounds perfectly valid to someone with a white middle class background, but due to adjacent election right issues has a distinctly racist outcome. I'd like D&D to be a place where people can be educated issues, so their personal ideology can grown and be refined. It's part of why I suggested the 'assume good faith' rule; I don't want people to run off others immediately because their opinions are problematic. Instead, I want to stop people who are aggressively or disingenuously promoting bigotry. D&D did a lot to encourage my own personal political growth from a position of pretty significant privilege, and I think it can do the same for other people if they're willing to listen and discuss. Anyway, my philosophy of moderation isn't super relevant, since I'm mostly here to shut up slapfights and put the brakes on derails. The actual mods have to make the serious decisions on bigotry.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
if it's true that fool of sound doesn't post in uspol, i think it demonstrates good judgment and i support them
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:If this was true, wouldnt you be banned already? Two of my three bans were cowardly "not for this post but just ummm... reasons" purge bans, which strengthens my argument.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
Your argument that you can't post in one thread due to the scary IK?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
exmarx posted:if it's true that fool of sound doesn't post in uspol, i think it demonstrates good judgment and i support them  that was my initial reaction as well: I've never heard of fool of sound so they're obviously staying out of the terrible threads I post in exclusively which is a plus
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Two of my three bans were cowardly "not for this post but just ummm... reasons" purge bans, which strengthens my argument. Gee you sound pretty persecuted
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:30
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Another important consideration is that people don't always understand the implications of their positions. Voter ID, for instance, sounds perfectly valid to someone with a white middle class background, but due to adjacent election right issues has a distinctly racist outcome. I'd like D&D to be a place where people can be educated issues, so their personal ideology can grown and be refined. It's part of why I suggested the 'assume good faith' rule; I don't want people to run off others immediately because their opinions are problematic. Instead, I want to stop people who are aggressively or disingenuously promoting bigotry. But even this is kind of telling. You're fine with not immediately probing/banning anyone because they may be simply be ignorant -- relative to your beliefs. It's not inherently racist to believe there should be voter ID requirements. People may be asked to provide some form of identification in Canada, Germany/Switzerland, and Sweden. Showing one piece of documentation to tie an individual to the voter rolls shouldn't really be a high bar to clear for someone that's 18+ years old. If obtaining a single piece of identification is an issue then that's an entirely separate problem to solve for beyond whether someone should have to show ID. This proposal may lead to disparate effects by class and therefore race, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's the intent. And again, it's moderation of perceived outcomes, which is highly subjective, and making a judgement on who is allowed to be the winner/loser of any given policy. If you can be probed/banned for arguing for any policy that is perceived to disproportionately hurts blacks/whites/asians/hispanics or jews/muslims/christians/jains or poor/middle class/affluent/wealthy without stated intent to do so then uhhh
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:But even this is kind of telling. You're fine with not immediately probing/banning anyone because they may be simply be ignorant -- relative to your beliefs. It's not inherently racist to believe there should be voter ID requirements. People may be asked to provide some form of identification in Canada, Germany/Switzerland, and Sweden. Showing one piece of documentation to tie an individual to the voter rolls shouldn't really be a high bar to clear for someone that's 18+ years old. If obtaining a single piece of identification is an issue then that's an entirely separate problem to solve for beyond whether someone should have to show ID. Voter ID laws harm minority voter rights and do literally nothing to prevent voter fraud, which is not a real problem that exists. This isn't up for argument, there is data. In person voter fraud is not a real problem that needs to be solved, but implementing Voter ID laws disenfranchises minority voters. So, yes, advocating for Voter ID laws is racist.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
The problem with ID laws when it comes to voting in America is that they very coincidentally tend to happen at around the same time that it's made extraordinarily difficult for traditionally Democrat voting demographics to get those IDs. You'll have things like "the license center is only open on the third Wednesday every month for six hours oh and by the way it's the only one for 50 miles." Good loving luck getting that done. However, that does not mean that requiring an ID is automatically racist. This is one of the snags with the "absolutely no racism allowed" rule. If you say "actually I'm in favor of requiring an ID to vote" then you immediately get accused of being a racist even though the reason it affects not white people more than white people is because of that totally separate issue. There's nothing wrong with making sure that only US citizens are voting in US elections. The problem is when it gets too difficult to actually prove that. Right now you do have to prove who you are to register to vote but mostly that just isn't difficult. In the case of voter suppression the outcome can sometimes be racist but the motivation is absolutely always political. Granted this is also a non issue given how rare voter fraud actually is in America.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1124788765111701505
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Well yeah that instance in particular was blatantly both racially and politically motivated.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:It's not inherently racist to believe there should be voter ID requirements. People may be asked to provide some form of identification in Canada, Germany/Switzerland, and Sweden. These might not be the shining examples of multiculturalism you think they are chief
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 22:38
|
|
WampaLord posted:Voter ID laws harm minority voter rights and do literally nothing to prevent voter fraud, which is not a real problem that exists. This isn't up for argument, there is data. In person voter fraud is not a real problem that needs to be solved, but implementing Voter ID laws disenfranchises minority voters. Does it explicitly disenfranchise minority voters or poorer voters in which [some] minority groups are disproportionately represented? I think it's pretty clearly the latter -- there's nothing that makes a white or black or hispanic person any more or less likely to have ID all else held equal. If the argument is you can't talk about policies that negatively affect poorer people then that's not great. The logical end of that is you can't hold any positions other than absolute economic equality. If you can't talk about policies that may have outcomes that disproportionately affect various minority groups then which ones? Because in many cases, and specifically economic distribution of resources, it's kinda a zero sum game. Any redistributive policy like increased progressive taxation is going to disproportionately harm jewish people and asians because they have a higher income. Any changes to the healthcare system will disproportionately affect indians and east asians. That's certainly not the intent, but is the outcome. Even saying it is "not a real problem" and therefore should not be discussed is an attempt at limiting range of views. It may or may not be a problem in practice, but the reality is that republicans will undoubtedly use lack of voter ID and illegal voting as an excuse in 2020 just like they did in 2016. I think removing doubt and eliminating that line of attack is itself beneficial and even moreso if democrats could get some policy gain out of a compromise deal. You can certainly disagree, but don't think it's a moderator's role to make judgements based on whether they agree with an argument in a debate and discussion forum. Unoriginal Name posted:These might not be the shining examples of multiculturalism you think they are chief Didn't say they were? Switzerland is a pretty insular country. They have extremely strict rules about migration and citizenship requirements. That said, I don't think anyone that argues against removing those policies is necessarily racist. It could be purely economic/class motivations because it's a wealthy country. Again, if the argument is you can't hold certain views on economics/class and a wrong view is subject to moderation rather than just criticism and scorn then we're kind of off to the races. KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 22:59 on May 6, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
Oh my god shut up you pedantic dweebazoid, "isn it ACTUALLY minorities or just DISPROPORTIONATELY" like this demon cracker nation doesn't try it's hardest to keep minorities poor thus rendering the distinction moot Also can we truly say whether or not the law passed right before an election saying that IDs with PO box addresses, which we're almost entirely native American voters living on the res, was racially motivated? I mean three white people we're also effected
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
Nvm
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Does it explicitly disenfranchise minority voters or poorer voters in which [some] minority groups are disproportionately represented? I think it's pretty clearly the latter -- there's nothing that makes a white or black or hispanic person any more or less likely to have ID all else held equal. Your racism is showing. Hint hint: when trying to defend policy, argue for the tangible, demonstrable good it does, not the hypothetical damage it helps prevent. Intent is nothing. Plans are nothing. Results are all that matters.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:If the argument is you can't talk about policies that negatively affect poorer people then that's not great. That's not the argument, the argument is that advocating for Voter ID laws is a racist thing to do. Stop trying to make it about "so I can't talk about anything at all?!?!?!" I'm ignoring your "points" about how you think you're right about Voter ID because they are dog whistle racism. "How hard is it to get an ID?" is literally the excuse used to disenfranchise minority voters, jackass. 31 counts of in person voter fraud in over a billion votes since 2000. That's what that link PPJ posted said. It's not a real problem that needs to be solved.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:That's not the argument, the argument is that advocating for Voter ID laws is a racist thing to do. Stop trying to make it about "so I can't talk about anything at all?!?!?!"
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You and others have resisted the idea of codifying which policies are too racist to advocate for, so people are trying to find the scope of that idea. And we have said over and over that it comes down to moderator discretion, you just want to know exactly how far up to the edge you're allowed to go. Maybe don't post in a way that test the limits? Especially when it comes to bigoted topics like Voter ID? ETA: I thought we all understood at this point that reality has a liberal bias, but apparently some of you are still convinced that the conservative viewpoint on certain issues has value when those views have been objectively proven wrong. Voter ID is one of those issues. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 23:21 on May 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You and others have resisted the idea of codifying which policies are too racist to advocate for, so people are trying to find the scope of that idea. It's weird how I have never once had to worry about my posts being too racist, and yet you seemingly live in constant terror
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This isn't up for argument, there is data. And that's why we're going to need a no conservative debate rule.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:The logical end of that is you can't hold any positions other than absolute economic equality. Got a compelling argument for why that's a negative?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 23:39
|
|
Transient People posted:Your racism is showing. Hint hint: when trying to defend policy, argue for the tangible, demonstrable good it does, not the hypothetical damage it helps prevent. Intent is nothing. Plans are nothing. Results are all that matters. Hint hint: "good" is a subjective valuation. The republican tax reform was "good" for nearly everyone in that it increased post-tax income and deficits largely aren't a concern of the left. It simply did more good for people at the upper end of the economic spectrum, whom are disproportionately white/asian/jewish. Are those tax cuts therefore racist and subject to probe/ban? People are asking these questions because after pages of discussion a moderator that was selected pretty explicitly said they're okay punishing people for racist/misogynist posting which includes disagreement on five pretty big issues in the public discourse! And while D&D doesn't need to hold itself to the same standards of the general public, it is pretty useful to know which views are strictly off limits rather than a "I know it when I see it" approach. Given the major thrust of this thread has been uneven application of punishment. Unoriginal Name posted:Got a compelling argument for why that's a negative? Well, the fact that such a reality currently exists nowhere in the world. Part of politics is talking about and defending your personal utopia, part of it is figuring out how to best navigate a world where every person's utopia is different. KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 23:49 on May 6, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Hint hint: "good" is a subjective valuation. The republican tax reform was "good" for nearly everyone in that it increased post-tax income and deficits largely aren't a concern of the left. The Republican tendancy to play bad faith games with deficits is a concern of the left and your entirely full of garbage and the same bad faith . No wonder you are scared to 
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:59 on May 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Hint hint: "good" is a subjective valuation. lol check out the community college student in his first week of ethics
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 04:20 |
|
|
KingNastidon posted:a moderator that was selected pretty explicitly said they're okay punishing people for racist/misogynist posting oh geez that sounds...Wait that sounds like exactly what they are supposed to do
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 00:13
|
|